2012

The president’s phony green economy is collapsing, drip by drip. While the rest of country is frantically trying to turn off the tap, it’s like the president has turned up his environmental music so loud he can no longer hear the coming cascade.

Consider the president’s clean car initiative, which has already funneled $5 billion into the electric car industry. Ener1—an electric car manufacturer who received $118 million from the Obama Department of Energy—went bankrupt two weeks ago. Fisker Automotive is downsizing and firing workers because the stimulus money that supported their green jobs ran out. Its battery supplier and fellow stimulus recipient A123 will also be down-and-out if Fisker goes. Even while the industry continues to receive tax credits for electric car sales, electric car manufacturers Aptera and Think both went bankrupt this month.

Enter the Obama 2012 budget, which fulfills his promise to “double-down” on clean energy investments. The budget not only continues the failed clean car fiasco, but actually escalates it, raising the $7,500 tax credit by $2,500 to $10,000 and broadening eligibility, in what sure looks like another industry bailout. Didn’t the president say something about bailouts in his State of the Union Address? Oh right, “It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom,” he claimed. “No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.” Except for my green energy allies, he apparently forgot to add.

The budget also calls for one million electric cars “on the road” by 2015—no matter how long, or how much it takes. So let’s do the math: $10,000 X 1,000,000 cars = $10,000,000,000: $10 billion to make 1/234th of the total light duty vehicles on the road electric, and to reduce oil consumption by less than 1 percent.  If only 10,000 are sold next year, which would be low, it’ll cost taxpayers $100 million. As Iain Murray and I pointed out in a Washington Examiner op-ed last month, these are subsidies for the rich: “The Volt sells for about $40,000, while the Fisker Karma sells for $100,000—well above most Americans’ price range. That means that the federal government is again working to benefit the rich so they can drive cars that ease their environmental conscience.”

[click to continue…]

Pythagoras would have been proud of the math muscles The League of Conservation Voters flexed in the calculations for their annual National Environmental Scorecard, which was released last week. For the House of Representatives, more than 20 environmentalist organizations chose 35 votes that were scored for 435 Members.  This week, the Cooler Heads Coalition issued our first ever scorecard, albeit with a relatively simple methodology: 100 – LCV score.  So cue the graduation music as the Cooler Heads Coalition recognizes the members of the House who earned a perfect score as honorary Defenders of Economic Liberty:

Rep. Tom Graves of Georgia,

Rep. Mark Amodei and Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada, and

Rep. Bob Turner of New York

Green energy spending in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a.k.a. the Stimulus, a.k.a., the Porkulus, has notched another failure: Energy Conversion Devices, a manufacturer of solar rooftop panel components and recipient of $13 million in Stimulus money, yesterday announced it is going bankrupt.

This blog repeatedly has warned that stimulus spending is a green albatross burdening the President. Indeed, I argue that the green jobs component of the Porkulus—about $60 billion in taxpayer giveaways—was doomed to failure. For starters, the whole idea of the Stimulus was to defibrillate the economy by spending a trillion dollars as fast as possible, and this is a recipe for waste. By way of example, the Energy Department received roughly double its normal budget, and was basically ordered to have the money out the door within two years and ten months. This was an overwhelming mandate. DOE had neither the time nor the manpower to properly vet outlays.

More fundamentally, government is terrible at picking horses. It’s nice to think of disinterested civil servants doing their best to safeguard taxpayer investments, but in reality, powerful political forces are doing everything in their power to influence how this money is spent. When Members of Congress aren’t pushing for pet projects in their respective districts, crony capitalists in the administration are guiding taxpayer money to their portfolios. The headline of an excellent Washington Post story from today says it all: “Venture capitalists play key role in Obama’s Energy Department.” Of course, political expediency and crony capitalism are poor investment strategies. As a result, green energy Stimulus spending is prone to embarrassment.

Solyndra is only the most spectacular failure. Nary a week passes without a politically favored green energy company hitting the skids. See: Amonix, Evergreen Solar, local reporting of “green jobs” training failures, Beacon Power, the ongoing Solyndra saga, underperforming electric vehicle sales, Ener1, Fisker Automotive…and now Energy Conversion Devices.

Mr. President, are you still sure that you want to “double down” on green energy giveaways?

Because of the unproven notion that burning fossil fuels causes global warming, saving energy has become the cultural norm with the expectation that reducing the use of coal-fueled electricity and gasoline will help everyone. More and more wind and solar generation is being installed and cars use less and less gas, with some being all-electric. This should be a good thing, but it ends up costing everyone—and disproportionately penalizes the poor.

Installing an unsubsidized residential solar photovoltaic (PV) system is expensive and the payoff can be decades. As a result, they are typically purchased by only those with substantial disposable income. A few years ago, I participated in a “solar fiesta.” I live in rural New Mexico where we often have snow on the ground from late October through early March. Due to cost, I only heat my home to 58 degrees in the winter. I have a large south-facing roof surface. I figured I was a prime candidate for a solar PV system. I visited different vendors. When I asked about the payoff, one vendor looked down his nose and emphasized: “It is not about the payoff.” I could not afford to go solar. I still burn pellets in my stove and bundle up all winter.

Those, who can afford the up-front costs to take advantage of the free energy from the sun, can avoid paying their utility company anything. They may even feel smug that they have beat the system. With net metering, when they generate extra power, the meter may literally spin backward. When the sun isn’t shining, they use the power they’ve banked. The end of the month total can balance out.

[click to continue…]

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Reason Foundation, National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and Natural Resources Defense Council sent a joint letter to members of Congress urging them reject the unprecedented linking of onshore and offshore oil and gas revenue with the Highway Trust Fund. In their letter, the groups note that creating this new revenue stream would undermine the longstanding user-pays/user-benefits highway funding principle that has guided infrastructure investment for nearly six decades. Further increasing the reliance of the Highway Trust Fund on revenue streams not connected to use, they argue, would threaten the future health of America’s highways.  My colleague Marc Scribner has made the case against the “drilling for roads” proposal in a previous post.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Transportation Safety Authority project that their proposed Model Year (MY) 2017 and later light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fuel economy standards will engender net benefits ranging from $262 billion (assuming a 7% discount rate) to $358 billion (assuming a 3% discount rate). These projections are based on assumptions regarding vehicle cost, fuel prices, and consumer acceptance that may or may not be borne out by events. Skepticism is justified. If the proposed standards are as beneficial to consumers and automakers as the agencies contend, why wouldn‘t consumers demand and profit-seeking manufacturers produce vehicles built to the same or similar standards without regulatory compulsion? Fuel economy regulation assumes that auto buyers do not want to avoid pain at the pump and automakers do not want to get rich. Experts will likely debate for years the net benefits of the rule as data become available regarding vehicle costs and sales and auto industry profits and employment. In a comment letter on the regulation I sent yesterday to the agencies, I examine a cost most experts have not addressed: the damage the Obama Administration‘s fuel economy agenda does to our constitutional system of separated powers and democratic accountability. Read the letter here.

Greenies hate civilization.  Ergo, the Green War on our W.C.s.

Think about it:  There is no greater symbol of civilization than the toilet and its various accoutrements.  From Mohenjo-Daro to the Roman Empire, civilized life has gone hand in hand with running water and underground infrastructure to wash the refuse of humanity away from our homes and cities.  Fire may be the most widespread symbol of Man’s rise from the Serengeti to Starbucks, but the most important is the plunger.

Thus, the Greenies desire to become the commodores of our commodes, from trying to tell us to use one square of toilet paper (which may be enough if all you eat is granola, but is wholly inadequate if your diet consists of, you know, human food), to the so-called “low flush” toilets that are designed to save water but end up wasting water because you have to flush the things a million times to properly exorcise your tank.

Now, those tiger-apologists at the World Wildlife Fund have targeted toilet paper itself.  A new WWF report titled “Don’t Flush Tiger Forests: Toilet Paper, U.S. Supermarkets, and the Destruction of Indonesia’s Last Tiger Habitats” claims that, “Americans who use Paseo or Livi brands of toilet tissue are contributing to the destruction of the Indonesian rainforest and tiger habitat,” according to the Environment News Service.

“Consumers shouldn’t have to choose between tigers and toilet paper,” proclaims the WWF’s Linda Kramme. “We’re asking retailers, wholesalers and consumers not to buy Paseo or Livi products until APP stops clearing rainforests in Sumatra.”

Two things.  First, tigers kill people.  Regularly.  Last year in one region in Bangladesh, 53 people were attacked by tigers, with 34 killed and 19 severely injured.  In one week the tigers of this forest killed seven people. Shame on the WWF for defending these murderous beasts.

[click to continue…]